Download File

 The Political Challenges of “Connecting America:”
An Analysis of Historical Parallels to Modern Day Broadband Expansion
David R. DeBor ‘13
Bruce A. Larson, Ph.D.
POL 401-Public Policy Capstone Thesis
5 May 2013
I affirm that I have upheld the highest principles of honesty and integrity in my academic work
and have not witnessed a violation of the Honor Code.
____________________________ ____/____/_______
DeBor 1 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Introduction
“…Right now we are at a crossroads. For while the United States invented the Internet, when it
comes to broadband we are lagging behind where we should be.”
–Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman
Most examples of large-scale American government ambitions are rooted in the promise
of uniting the country and eliminating barriers to a host of societal interactions. Current policy
discourse over expanding access to broadband Internet is reminiscent of key historical public
investment achievements, each of which addressed a fundamental desire to connect large swaths
of the country for political, economic, and social reasons. The examples of such monumental
public investments are the federal Interstate Highway System and its precursor, the
Transcontinental Railroad. Each public investment project required a delicate balance between
public resources and private innovation and, as a result, reflects the policy craftsmanship that
must be replicated in order to accomplish the 21st century form of connecting the country using
high-speed broadband Internet access.
The scope of this paper will explore the historical similarities of two public investment
projects that necessitated the cooperation of public and private actors and compare the success
and failures to the present day need for government to incentivize activity by private Internet
Service Providers. Access to the Internet is rapidly becoming a necessity to daily American life,
in the same way that public utilities are viewed as irreplaceable commodities. In order for the
Internet to continue transforming into a public utility, public policies must be created that reflect
the true public-private nature of the American broadband system. The historical accounts of the
political and economic struggles of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway
System lay a framework for navigating the challenging policymaking path of a public-private
DeBor 2 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” collaboration required for the goal of connecting the country through broadband access to be
successfully accomplished.
The First Transcontinental Railroad: The First Historical Parallel to Broadband Access
Perhaps the earliest large-scale attempt to connect the nation across vast stretches of land
was through the First Transcontinental Railroad. An effective partnership between the Central
Pacific Railroad Company and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, two large private
enterprises, and the federal government, the new network of rail lines allowed for the United
States to be connected in an entirely unprecedented way. There were political and legislative
paths, however, that were followed to define how the implementation of the network of rail lines
was effectively carried out.
Railroad Company Overview and Legislative Paths and Progress of Government
An appropriate starting point for a discussion of the legislative challenges and eventual
policy of the First Transcontinental Railroad is to look at the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 and its
subsequent revisions. Signed by President Lincoln during the Civil War, the legislation served
as an example of how federal government policies can effectively leverage private competition
to accomplish significant public investment projects. The Central Pacific Railroad and Union
Pacific Railroad “Each raced to complete a longer portion of the railroad—and reap the lion’s
share of the profits” and “[the] competitive nature of the endeavor was no accident. Rather, it
was inherent in the legislation itself” (Brown 2012, 42).
Occurring in the midst of the Civil War, the Pacific Railroad Act was passed under the
auspices of “‘military necessity’” which led Congress to “set aside twenty million acres of public
DeBor 3 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” domain for land grants and provided a $60 million loan1.
Then Congress entrusted both
incentives to comparatively obscure businessmen who had yet to prove themselves” when it
came to building a rail system (Borneman 2010, 38). The urgency that the Civil War brought to
the initiative allowed for extraordinary risks to be taken as a result of the promise of establishing
unifying connections throughout a divided nation.
At the urging of a Congress willing to make the concept of a transcontinental railroad as
appealing to private business as possible, the resulting law successfully incentivized the
construction of two large rail lines to be owned by the Central Pacific and Union Pacific
companies. Within Congress, these companies had influential advocates to promote the cause.
These advocates included Representative Theodore Judah of California and the “Big Four”
merchants from Sacramento California: Collis Huntington, Mark Hopkins, Charles Crocker, and
Leland Stanford. Judah was the first chief engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad in California
and, along with the “Big Four” in 1855, completed a survey of land for what would eventually
become the Central Pacific Railroad Company. As a result, “the Central Pacific Railroad would
be a major player in any ensuing legislation” (Borneman 2010, 37).
The other large railroad company of the time, the Union Pacific Railroad, started its work
later than the Central Pacific, but also had significantly influential allies to include it as a
beneficiary of the lucrative Pacific Railroad Act. The Union Pacific Railroad, originally started
in 1864 as the Crédit Mobilier of America, was a shell company charged with buying Union
Pacific stocks and selling them at higher prices. A prominent Wall Street financier, Thomas
Durant and his partner George Francis Train created this scheme (Brown 2012, 41). After a
1 The land grants and loans were eventually doubled in 1864 with the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads being allowed to float their first-­‐mortgage thirty-­‐year construction bonds as an additional incentive (Borneman 2010, 42). DeBor 4 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” federal investigation, Durant hired a railroad engineer and Union Army general named Grenville
Dodge and the project of the Union Pacific Railroad was readily resumed.
Each of these two companies was pitted against the other in a race to complete rail lines
along two different routes. The Pacific Railroad Act, chief among the legislative actions taken
during this time, was the primary means for government progress to be made toward the goal of
connecting the country through rail lines. The Act was largely an effort on the part of the federal
government to incentivize progress by the private sector and was able to garner significant
bipartisan support within Congress. As Congress crafted a bill capable of gaining majority
approval, compromises were made before final passage.
For instance, after the secession of the southern states, a proposed terminus in Omaha,
Nebraska was successfully included. Another compromise measure was the possibility of five
different routes so as to encompass territory in as many areas as possible in an attempt to garner
as much geographically diverse support as possible. Zelizer references the delegate of the
territory of New Mexico at the time who is quoted as saying that advocates of the railroad
“would not support any one measure ‘unless it starts in the corner of every man’s farm and runs
through all his neighbors’ plantations.’” Moreover, “Supporters of the compromise saw the
favored line as a national project crossing largely unoccupied territory” (Zelizer 2004, 289-290).
This last line conveys what is perhaps the single most important facet of the way the First
Transcontinental Railroad was built: the railroad was portrayed as a large-scale public
investment in the nation’s growth and long-term development.
The Public-Private Partnership Inherent in the Transcontinental Railroad
In order for the Pacific Railroad Act to have been successful, a powerful partnership
between the federal government and private industry was an imperative aspect of the initiative.
DeBor 5 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” By virtue of the fact that the government intentionally supported a duopoly of the railroad
industry, an ultra-competitive construction process was able to ensue and the monumental
infrastructural endeavor could be accomplished with relative speed and efficiency. In looking at
the government incentives granted to two large private corporations, it is easy to understand how
private industry titans can accomplish national public investment projects.
In order to effectively incentivize construction of a national rail network, the federal
government needed to make the project as attractive as possible to the private corporations that
would build the lines. It has already been mentioned earlier that federal land grants and loans
were offered through the Pacific Railroad Act but the specifics offer more insight. The federal
subsidies were given as such:
“6,400 acres of land would be given per mile of track constructed, in ten-mile strips
alternating on either side of the four-hundred-foot right-of-way; mineral lands were
excepted in the bill, though railroad companies had the right to timber and stone on
public lands; $16,000 in bonds would be given for each mile constructed on the easy
grades at either end of the line, up the Sacramento Valley and across the Nevada prairies;
$48,000 per mile would be given for mountain portions, beginning at the western base of
the Sierra Nevada and the eastern base of the Rocky Mountains, and both sections
continuing toward the center for 150 miles; $32,000 per mile in bonds would be given for
track stretching across the high plains” (Bain 1999, 116).
These incentives also came with certain limitations, such as withholding 15 percent of the
funds for mountainous regions and 25 percent for easier areas until the line was operational. In
addition, no Treasury funds could be received until the companies involved “had each raised
millions from [private] investors and built forty miles of track” (Bain 1999, 116). By tying
portions of the incentives to the project’s progress, the government created an environment
where private industry was motivated to competition by the allure of government subsidies as
well as by the prospect of being the first company to have a fully functional, and lucrative,
transcontinental rail line.
DeBor 6 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” This incentivizing of the railroad project is what made it possible for government to
create a hospitable atmosphere where a large-scale public investment project necessitating
private business activity could effectively incorporate both government and private sector actors.
Interestingly enough, the atmosphere the government created rested on the enterprising spirits of
two large consortiums of private business. The competitive construction process that ensued
effectively pitted both the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroad companies against each
other and created a market controlled by two large firms. While such a market design may be
decried as anticompetitive today, the resulting duopoly was very much necessary for the
inducements to construction to function properly by creating strong competition.
Part of the brilliance of the Pacific Railroad Act was in the way it created a
codependence between the Union Pacific and Central Pacific companies. As Bain describes the
design, the two companies relied on each other to continue building their respective segments of
track or else risk the entire project being cancelled. He writes, “If the Central Pacific reached
Nevada before the eastern roads, it could keep on building until it met them…[and]…if the
Leavenworth line reached the 100th meridian before the Union Pacific, it was free to press on
toward California.” However, “if the railroad was not complete between the Missouri and
Sacramento Rivers by January 1, 1874, then the road—and all company properties, including
tracks, rolling stock, buildings, and real estate, would be forfeited” (Bain 1996, 117). Therefore,
the federal government played a strong role in promoting stiff competition between the two
enterprises through the use of direct policy incentives and the use of harsh consequences should
either company fail to deliver on their promise of creating transcontinental rail lines.
This public-private partnership, while oft criticized in contemporary political discourse,
demonstrates the policy effects that can be had when government acts in a manner that prioritizes
DeBor 7 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” incentivizing private business yet maintains the option of implementing negative ramifications
when private business does not act in accordance with the government objectives. The public
investment project of the transcontinental railroad offers an insight into the potential for effective
public policy that can occur when government and private industry are able to work in a
collaborative fashion to accomplish national goals. As will be proven, the First Transcontinental
Railroad was not the only large-scale instance of a public investment designed to connect large
portions of the country.
The Interstate Highway System: The Second Historical Parallel to Broadband Access
In a lot of ways the Interstate Highway System is similar to the Transcontinental
Railroad.
Both were massive public investment projects aiming to connect the nation for
economic and social reasons and both required incentives from the federal government. Where
they differ, however, is to whom the incentives were directed. In the case of the railroad,
incentives were designed to spur private economic activity, but with the Interstate Highway
System the federal government leveraged the power of the purse to induce state and local
governments to complete construction projects necessary in order to accomplish the policy
objective of building a national network of interstate highways. Like with the railroad, the
legislative path followed to accomplish this goal and the partnership between the federal
government and the states will demonstrate the efficacy of completing a large public investment
guided primarily by the strong hand of the federal government.
Legislative Path to the Interstate Highway System
The legislative path to the Interstate Highway System was one defined by concessions by
the states to a strong federal role over the highway policymaking process under the auspices, at
least initially, of national security. One of the first legislative attempts was the Federal Aid Road
DeBor 8 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Act of 1916, also known as the “Bankhead Bill” for Senator William Bankhead who subscribed
to the thinking of the “Good Roads” movement that called for the construction of efficient roads
as an attempt at preventing the spread of socialism. The Act, which is often credited with being
the basis for contemporary highway policy, maintained state control over public roads but
required federal approval of which roads would be improved, the type of road to be constructed,
and the specifications for the improvement (Karnes 2009, 83-84). In doing so, this Act marks
the beginning of a transition to a national system of highways that is guided by the strong
influence of the federal government.
The next advancements toward a national network of highways came under the Roosevelt
Administration. Initially funded under the Works Progress Administration, improvements to
pubic roads were “shoddy and inconsistent…” The Federal Aid Act of 1944, enacted in the midst
of WWII, “was the most ambitious [attempt] yet and the first to propose special funds for urban
roads.” Additionally, the legislation authorized “the National System of Interstate Highways, a
40,000 mile network to connect as directly as possible all metropolitan areas of 300,000
population or more.”
The Act cost the federal government $500 million a year and was
eventually increased to $875 million in the revision of 1954 (Karnes 2009, 86). Under FDR, the
federal government assumed a larger role in the formation of transportation policy and assumed a
greater share of the responsibility for establishing the national highway system.
Following the progress made by FDR came some of the most significant and most
famous developments of the Interstate Highway System. President Dwight David Eisenhower,
being responsible for the massive growth of the interstate highways, was one of the chief
designers of the most impressive example of connecting America in modern history. Initially,
Eisenhower was not all that focused on the problem of America’s highways until Vice President
DeBor 9 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Nixon made brief remarks about the “obsolete system” to a meeting with state governor’s.
Responding to a study group formed by the governor’s in attendance, Eisenhower formed his
own commission, which was led by General Lucius Clay. The results of this commission
eventually transformed into the Administration’s highway proposals (Karnes 2009, 85-86).
Eisenhower understood the importance of large public investment projects: they cannot
occur without significant leadership from a strong federal government.
As a result,
Eisenhower’s “innovation, and the most essential part of the plan, was the expenditure over a
ten-year period of $27 billion, completing and modernizing the National System of Interstate
Highways” (Karnes 2009, 88). The breakdown of funding was as follows:
“(1) $2.5 billion to modernize the existing interstate roads by 1964; (2) $315 million to
continue aid to primary roads ‘as before;’ (3) $210 million to continue aid to secondary
roads ‘as before;’ (4) $75 million to improve roads not in the interstate system; (5) $22.5
million for roads on public lands ‘as before.’ The annual total federal expenditure would
be $3.12 billion” (Karnes 2009, 88).
After months of stalled progress over concerns about the role of the government and to
who tax burdens should be allotted, George Fallon and Hale Boggs proposed the National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which passed both chambers and was signed into
law on June 29, 1956. The plan was divided into Tier I, the “Federal-Aid Highway Act,” which
“committed the federal government to an expenditure of $25 billion for roads between 1957 and
1969,” and Tier II, the “Highway Revenue Act,” which created the Highway Trust Fund to
assign user taxes to the highway advancements (Karnes 2009, 92). The plan that Eisenhower
eventually was able to sign into law did little to assess costs based on use and instead created a
system that was paid for almost exclusively by the federal government, eliminating the cost
sharing between federal and state governments that had been the norm in the years leading up to
the 1956 legislation.
DeBor 10 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” With the Interstate Highway System beginning to show signs of congestion and disrepair,
the George H.W. Bush Administration sought to revisit highway policy and find a legislative fix
for the woes that threatened Eisenhower’s program. As a result, there was a shift back to a
federal-state partnership where state governments were given more control over the highways
passing through state land. In 1991 President Bush signed the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
The legislation was an overhaul of the model for financing
construction that “contemplated spending $151 billion over a six-year period. Of that, $119.5
billion was designated for road construction and repair, and $31.5 billion for mass transit
programs.” While the share of federal-state spending stayed at a 90-10 ratio, states could
transfer half of their quota to mass transit initiatives. This transfer became mandatory should a
state fail to meet clean air standards (Karnes 2009, 95).
While ISTEA and subsequent innovations during the Clinton years made progress for the
long-term life of the Interstate Highway System, mass transit was nearly always neglected. Most
state governments found it more efficient to use federal funds for traditional paving and
maintenance of existing roads. As a result, the primary means by which to connect the nation
has been, and will likely continue to be, the Interstate Highway System.
Like with the
Transcontinental Railroad, there was a crucial partnership that needed to be fostered in order for
the Interstate Highway System to become a reality. In the case of the highways, however, that
partnership was a one-sided relationship between the federal government and the states.
Federal-State Partnership
With the legislative history of the Interstate Highway System outlined above, a closer look
into the relationship between the federal government and the states is warranted.
While
cooperation between federal and state government was a necessity during the legislative debates
DeBor 11 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” over the highway system, the partnership was not always a smooth or easy one. Oftentimes the
debate over the role of the federal government and state’s rights threatened to disrupt even the
simplest of proposals. As a result, the architects of the eventual policy had to carefully consider
how they enacted the required policy changes.
One of the most prominent areas for tension to arise was between the Federal Highway
Administration and state officials. For instance, the Federal-Aid Highway Act had historically
contained provisions that called for public hearings on matters concerning new road
construction. In 1968 Congress modified the law to include concerns ranging beyond just
economic implications and required additional hearings to occur for every federal highway plan
introduced. As a result, the policy process was slowed significantly. The state officials felt “this
guaranteed needless delay, and it was insulting, to boot. They knew how to conduct hearings.
They knew how to solicit citizen involvement. They didn’t need the feds micromanaging every
detail of a highway program that supposedly was led by the states.” Moreover, the 1968 revision
allowed for anyone dissatisfied with a decision to appeal directly to the federal government
(Swift 2011, 289).
This concentration of authority with the Federal Highway Administration is evidence of
the relationship between the states and the federal bureaucracy over building the Interstate
Highway System. The partnership can be summarized by saying that the federal government
realized the need to assume a strong, centralized role while still providing the freedom and
ability for the states to assert their own local influence over the construction of the national
roadways. Cooperation between federal and state governments is an artful process, requiring a
delicate balance between overbearing federal oversight and disorganized and divergent state
decisions.
DeBor 12 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” As has been proven, the Interstate Highway system has a similar history to the
Transcontinental Railroad, albeit with some key distinctions that have been noted. Both of these
initiatives were large-scale public investment projects that demanded a degree of cooperation
between the federal government and other critical outside partners in order for the network to be
built. The following section will use these historical examples to outline a comprehensive plan
for extending broadband access to a larger majority of Americans that centers on the idea that
government and private industry can effectively partner on common policy goals.
Broadband Access in America: The Next Large Public Investment
Access to high-speed wired and wireless broadband remains a consistent policy goal in the minds
of Washington lawmakers, albeit one mired in technological jargon that causes the issue to easily
lose priority in the national agenda.
Publication of the National Broadband Plan, and
subsequently enacted policies or initiatives, has helped to bring the issue more to the forefront of
political and policy debates.
This section will explore the current challenges and gaps in
broadband coverage that still exist today and the progress made thus far. Finally, this section
will conclude by offering a policy alternative that will lead to increased broadband access, better
connectedness for the entire nation, and a healthy broadband and Internet marketplace where
innovation is fostered and encouraged.
Current Challenges Facing Broadband in America
While the Federal Communications Commission has made significant progress on
increasing access to broadband, there remains much work to be done, including closing large
broadband gaps that span the continental United States. In addition to gaps in coverage, the
DeBor 13 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” speed with which consumers access the Internet as well as the number of competing Internet
Service Providers servicing an area are lagging in progress.
Looking at Figure 1 in Appendix A reveals the extent to which the country is not
connected by traditional wireline broadband. Those areas marked in red are underserved by
wired broadband, as in broadband that connects to the home via cable or fiber optic wires. Those
areas in green are considered successfully served by wired broadband. As is readily apparent,
the large cities along the east coast are very much connected in this manner, with connectedness
diminishing in the western part of the map (National Broadband Map 2013). This results in
predominantly rural and sparsely populated regions being left without access to wired
broadband.
Wireless broadband, however, is a slightly more optimistic sign that progress is being
made toward connecting America with high-speed Internet access. Figure 2 looks at the same
map but analyzes coverage provided by wireless broadband. As is easily observed, some form of
wireless broadband serves the vast majority of the country, with small regions lacking coverage
(National Broadband Map 2013). This only makes for slight optimism because, as we will see,
the speed with which consumers are able to use broadband access determines the extent to which
that access is sufficient.
Again using data from the National Broadband Map, it is clear that the speeds experienced
while using the Internet are merely adequate for today’s digital age. Figure 3 offers a test of
broadband speeds conducted for the following categories: Home; Schools, Libraries and
Community Centers; Medium/Large Business; Small Business; Mobile; and Other. For the most
obviously important categories, those representing home and work, the median speed falls below
half that of the highest potential speed experienced within that category. The figure shows that,
DeBor 14 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” for an average home, the maximum download speed was about 15 mbps.2 For Medium/Large
Businesses (24.5mbps) and Small Businesses (10.2mbps) the speeds were reasonably faster
(National Broadband Map 2013). The importance of this data lies in the fact that the median
speed across all categories never passes the fifty percent mark, a sign that speeds for most users
are not meeting the expectations of what speeds are technically possible.
A significant factor behind this disparity is the technology used to access high-speed
broadband. Today, the fastest type of connection utilizes fiber optic cables, however most of the
country is still connecting to the Internet using Digital Subscriber Line, or DSL, or coaxial cable
for broadband access. These latter two technologies are oftentimes significantly slower than
fiber optic. According to Figure 4, which looks at the type of connection technology used for
consumers who have Internet access, only 20.5% of the United States is connected using fiber
compared to 89.5% for DSL, 87.6% for cable, and 99% for wireless (National Broadband Map
2013). The relatively small percentage of fiber users represents the fact that most Internet users
are receiving broadband through legacy systems that were implemented over the last decade.
The last pieces of data will highlight the current state of competition among Internet
Service Providers for both wireless and wired broadband. Using Figures 5 and 6, most Internet
users have a choice between two and three providers3 for wired broadband while the selection of
a wireless provider ranges from four to five options.4 With limited competition in the broadband
telecommunications industry comes the risk of monopoly or, as some scholars define it, duopoly
where consumers must choose between a small selection of gatekeepers to the Internet.
2 Megabits per second is the standard measurement used to calculate the time it takes to download data from the Internet. 15mbps is enough to comfortably download a medium to large video file in several minutes. 3 31.2% for two providers and 38.1% for three providers. 4 25.9% for four providers and 27.5% for five providers. DeBor 15 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” This is the state of the broadband industry in America today. Tim Wu, in his book The
Master Switch, discusses how the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913 and the Telecommunications
Act of 19965 were written under the auspices that the newly created AT&T would act in a
benevolent way. He writes that there was a stark contrast between the first law and the second,
“The difference was this: the old AT&T had pledged to operate as a public trust, and was as
good as its word. The new AT&T had no such aspirations” (Wu 2010, 244). In this brief
example one central point is clear, it is compelling to view companies whose commodity is
access to the Internet, and all the information that brings, as public utilities upon which the entire
nation relies.
This sparks one final challenge facing broadband today.
Policymaking that aims to
increase access to broadband must strike a delicate balance between heavy-handed government
regulation that stifles companies’ economic freedoms and unchecked corporate actions that
operate in manners inconsistent with the view that broadband Internet access is quickly
becoming a necessary public utility for daily life. The difficulty in promoting competition in the
broadband market is because, as Robert Atkinson says, “broadband displays natural monopoly or
duopoly characteristics” (Atkison 2007, 1). This is to say that, due to the highly technical nature
of broadband and the high cost of entry for new companies to emerge in the market, the
broadband industry can very easily fall into a monopolistic or duopolistic state.
Current Progress Toward Connecting America
While the technical and economic challenges are quite cumbersome, there has been
significant progress made to date. Like all instances of large-scale legislation recently, the
5 Both pieces of legislation aimed at creating competition by breaking the monopoly held by the large Bell Corporation (Wu 2010). DeBor 16 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” partisan gridlock in Congress has caused broadband-related issues to be neglected in the
legislature. Despite a lack of congressional action, the Obama White House, and the Federal
Communications Commission under its direction, managed to use the executive rulemaking
powers of regulatory agencies to accomplish most of the broadband agenda the current
Administration has outlined.
One of the most interesting and most direct instances of executive action toward
increasing broadband access is reminiscent of how the federal government offered land grants
for railroad development. In June of 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order titled,
“Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment.” The Order “requires Federal agencies to
harmonize, streamline, and make publicly available comprehensive information on procedures
and policies for accessing their assets for purposes of broadband deployment” (Executive Office
of the President 2012, hereafter EEOP). In essence, the Order makes public land available for
use by private Internet Service Providers in order to facilitate construction of the technology
required for broadband.
While this Executive Order is one of the most recent and sweeping initiatives, the
Administration has also laid the groundwork for a partnership between industry leaders and
government actors. Named the U.S. Ignite Partnership, the effort comes in the form of a nonprofit with the “mission to catalyze 60 advanced, next-generation applications capable of
operating on giga-bit6 broadband networks over the five years in six areas of national priority:
education and workforce development, advanced manufacturing, health, transportation, public
safety, and clean energy” (EEOP 2012). Intended to connect private industry with state and local
governments, the goal of the project is to stimulate collaborative activity that will result in new
6 More data than a mega-­‐bit. Speeds measured in giga-­‐bits are faster than those measured in mega-­‐bits. DeBor 17 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” technologies capable of performance on the next generation of broadband networks. In other
words, by fostering creation of potential uses, the federal government hopes to incentivize
similar creation of the future of broadband necessary for the new innovations to operate.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), principally charged with enacting
many needed initiatives, has published an online tool for consumers to monitor the progress
toward the completion of the goals contained in the National Broadband Plan. Figure 7 depicts
this tool where major accomplishments can be observed. Such progress includes creation of a
Broadband Speed Test for users to report speed deficiencies as well as the formation of various
task forces designed to address every aspect of broadband policy.
A quick glance at this tool makes clear how technically complicated broadband policy can
become, however, what is also clear is the specificity of each initiative or proposal listed. The
FCC is handling this complex policy problem by focusing on accomplishing goals of the
National Broadband Plan in the appropriate policy domains. That is the reason for the emphasis
on local and state activity. In the beginning of the Plan it states, “It makes recommendations to
the FCC, the Executive Branch, Congress and state and local governments” (National Broadband
Plan 2010). Rather than attempt to accomplish the policy objectives for broadband access by
large-scale government action, the FCC and the Obama Administration recognize the importance
of working with private and state actors.
In short, the National Broadband Plan has paved the way for significant milestones to be
accomplished, but much work remains to be done. In the section that follows, I will outline my
opinions and ideas for how broadband access can truly be treated as the next example of a largescale public investment project where government and industry can partner for the cause.
DeBor 18 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” A Way Forward
In order for America to be connected in 21st century terms, there is no issue more crucial
than expanding broadband access. This goal can be accomplished using three principles: foster a
competitive private-public partnership, incentivize more public lands for broadband
infrastructure, and enact significant congressional action akin to bills passed for the
Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System. I will explore each of these ideas
in turn.
Perhaps the most critical approach that needs to take place is promoting a competitive
broadband industry that discourages monopolistic or duopolistic scenarios from occurring. One
of the ways that government can partner with private industry to do so is through the existing
power of making broadband spectrum 7 available.
Jeffrey Eisenach writes, “The National
Broadband Plan…emphasizes the importance of spectrum policy, and focuses on the need to
reallocate spectrum from less efficient to more efficient uses” (Eisenach 2011). Currently, the
FCC will hold auctions where Internet Service Providers can seek to be the highest bidder for the
rights to use certain broadband frequencies. Unfortunately, the largest of these companies tend
to dominate the bidding process. As an alternative, the government, through the FCC, needs to
ensure that smaller broadband companies have equal access to spectrum either through mandates
or spectrum license sharing agreements.
By enabling more companies to have spectrum rights, there will be an increased need for
necessary broadband infrastructure. The Obama Administration should be commended for its
progress on making public lands available for broadband deployment. As was shown in the
example of the railroad, this policy approach is highly effective for committing public land to a
7 Spectrum is a range of frequencies that information is transmitted across. DeBor 19 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” project of national significance. In doing so, the federal government can send a clear message
that broadband access is a public utility that requires a public investment to support continued
growth and innovation.
My final proposition is also the most difficult to achieve. In order for broadband access to
be viewed as a public utility, there is an absolute need for congressional action. The policy
alternatives already proposed need to be incorporated into bipartisan and comprehensive
legislation that will commit future government and political leaders to the aspirations of
connecting the country using the Internet. Such legislation needs to be of the landmark variety
like it was for the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System.
These
legislative feats clearly stated that America was devoted to connecting all corners of the country
and they can be credited for the profound economic and social changes that have transpired.
While the policy recommendations outlined here are broad, the spirit of them signifies that
broadband and, more importantly, the Internet have reached such tantamount importance to daily
American life that the time has come for them to be viewed as public utilities akin to water or
electricity.
If policymakers are to be expected to promote 21st century growth, then all
Americans should be expected to have a right to quality Internet access so that they may
successfully live in the digital age.
Conclusion
The modern day policy goal of expanding access to broadband Internet can be
accomplished by adapting the successes of the political and economic struggles relating to the
Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System. This paper has made clear that
the policy goal of connecting the country through broadband access is not without precedent.
DeBor 20 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” The example of the First Transcontinental Railroad is evidence of the effectiveness of a publicprivate partnership for public investment projects. In the case of the Interstate Highway System,
the importance of strong executive leadership and landmark congressional legislation is defined.
The historical parallels cited here underscore the fact that broadband is an incredibly
challenging issue and an important policy problem with significant economic, political, and
social elements of society that it affects. Increasing broadband access must be done in a fashion
that affirms America’s commitment to Internet for all citizens for years to come and it is
imperative that public institutions find a way to work with private industry. What is being
increased here is more than just access to broadband; access to information is the ultimate goal.
As such, a balance between government and business must be found in order to maintain
the integrity of an open Internet that remains free from limitations or restrictions by either entity.
The need for responsible policy solutions to broadband access is highlighted by the concluding
sentence in Tim Wu’s book “If we do not take this moment to secure our sovereignty over the
choices that our information age has allowed us to enjoy, we cannot reasonably blame its loss on
those who are free to enrich themselves by taking it from us in a manner history has foretold”
(Wu 2010, 319).
Only through sensible government and industry action can the dangers
threatening broadband be avoided as the primary goal of extending access to the Internet and the
flood of information it carries with it.
DeBor 21 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” References
Atkinson, Robert D. 2007. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy.” The
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (October): 1-12.
Bain, David Haward. 1999. Empire Express: Building the First Trans-Continental Railroad.
New York: Penguin-Putnam.
Blas, Elisheva. 2010. “The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways: The Road to Success?” The History Teacher 44:127-142.
Borneman, Walter R. 2010. Rival Rails The Race to Build the America’s Greatest
Transcontinental Railroad. New York: Random House.
Brown, Jeff. 2012. “Uniting the States: The First Transcontinental Railroad.” Civil Engineering.
(July/August) 40-42.
Eisenach, Jeffrey A. 2011. “Spectrum Reallocation and the National Broadband Plan.” Federal
Communications Law Journal (December).
Executive Office of the President. 2012. FACT SHEET: Bolstering High-Speed Internet
Broadband to Boost the Economy. Washington, D.C.: White House.
Federal Communications Commission. 2010. Connecting America: The National Broadband
Plan. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
Genachowski, Julius. 2010. “America’s 2020 Broadband Vision.” February 17.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/17/americas-2020-broadband-vision (May 5,
2013).
Gulati, Girish J. and David J. Yates. 2012. “Different paths to universal access: The impact of
policy and regulation on broadband diffusion in the developed and developing worlds.”
Telecommunications Policy 36: 749-761.
Hatfield, Dale N. 2010. “Essays From Time Warner Cable’s Research Program on Digital
Communications: The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.” Federal
Communications Law Journal (December).
Karnes, Thomas L. 2009. Asphalt and Politics: A History of the American Highway System.
Jefferson: McFarland & Company.
“National Broadband Map: How Connected in My Community?” http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide (May 5, 2013).
“National Broadband Map: How Connected in My Community?” http://www.broadbandmap.gov/technology (May 5, 2013).
DeBor 22 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” “National Broadband Map: How Connected in My Community?” http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers (May 5, 2013).
Obama, Barack. 2012. Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment, Executive Order
13616. Federal Register, vol. 77, no. 119.
Selwyn, Lee J. and Helen E. Golding. 2010. “Revisiting the Regulatory Status of Broadband
Internet Access: A Policy Framework for Net Neutrality and an Open Competitive
Internet. Federal Communications Law Journal (December).
Swift, Earl. 2011. The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and
Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Tang, Mingzhe. 2011. “Diversification of cable television firms into broadband politics.”
Telecommunications Policy 35:951-969.
Weber, Joe. 2012. “The evolving Interstate Highway System and the changing geography of the
United States.” Journal of Transport Geography 25:70-86.
Wu, Tim. 2010. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Zelizer, Julian E., eds. 2004. The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
2002. “Transcontinental Railroad.” Civil Engineering (November/December): 101.
DeBor 23 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Appendix A. Figures and Tables.
Figure 1. Wired Broadband Access. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
Figure 2. Wireless Broadband Access. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
DeBor 24 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Figure 3. Broadband Speed Test. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
Figure 4. Technology. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
Figure 5. Number of Wireline Providers. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
DeBor 25 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Figure 6. Number of Wireless Providers. Adapted from www.broadbandmap.gov
DeBor 26 The Political Challenges With “Connecting America” Figure 7. 2010 Quarterly Broadband Action Items. Adapted from www.broadband.gov